|
ok i give in... here is mine
interesting note, this was done entirly in lightroom not a single layer or highpass filter. only using shadow and highlight tools.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Yes, that lightroom tutorials had the best results I think. Since that all the effects really are, just shadow/highlight. Over defining flat colors.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ok here is my 1st and 2nd attempt I see alot of portraits witch is proably what the effect is best used for but I like taking pictures of buildings haha.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Here is my try with a bit of my own variation.
Original:
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
This is my second attempt:
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
my experiment. I softened things down a bit, thought it was a bit over the top perhaps. Judging from the reactions of some photographer friends of mine, I don't think Belgium is ready for hyper realism.
This is actually a shot of a Belgian band that gave me exactly nine minutes before soundcheck to get this shot. So all things considering, I'm fairly pleased.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Here's my test on a jpeg I found lying around, could probably get a cleaner look with a raw file :)
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
ok, here a last more subtle attempt....
Vivitar 285hv off umbrella cam right, bare flash cam left, and rear.
Using the newest version of Gimp 2.4.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
With any photosohp effect there's usually 5 ways to skin the cat, this one's no different. The lighting is the difference though!
The Shadow highlight tool will give you much more versatile results....and try it in lab mode for the best control.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
thanks to this tutorial and a few other photoshop things ive learned in the past while this is what i created. its not finished. but i decided to share. thanks to all that have gave feedback on this discussion!
let me know what you think of it, rather in this post or in my flikr gallery..thanks again.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
To tell the truth I don't know why people like Dave Hill's style, or Joey Lawrence's style.
I don't like that style. :-P
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
well ive been wanting to have some of my images have a more rugged look and the tips and tools ive learned from this plus other tutorials have not only helped me but alot of other people. I can say that not everyone will like or want this look, but its just another tool we can offer to our clients.
everyone has there own opinion, and I usually dont follow the trends of anything. but I need to adapt. and thanks to others I can do that.
I dont like the whole airbrushed plastic skin look, but i get asked to do it.
sometimes i get asked to make the model 3 stops lighter then her skin tone...lol
even if you dont like something still doesnt mean that you shouldnt learn it, worst case your learning what steps NOT to do to create that with your own image LOL
we all will get this outta our system(those who love it) and will move on, but at that time those who loved it, if ever asked to do it to an image can do it efficiently.
this msg is not to blast the 'haters' lol, but more to show that its more of a tool, and at this rate its gonna be one of those things people ask for just like retouching, airbrushing, superimposing, HDR...etc :)
...ive been up way to long to be typing, gnight all(or goodmorning)
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My boss has been working a while on doing photographs in this style. I know part of what he does to obtain this, but part of it is still a mystery. Here's some examples.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
cheshirepoet edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
|
Btw, I do my boss's (Bill Simone) website for him, if anyone wants to check out some more photos head to
www.billsimonephotography.com
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I am interested in knowing what the process is.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Cheshirepoet - nice work on the web site! The site presents his images very well. Looks like he uses a combination of techniques from LucisArt to HDR as well as some manual photoshop techniques to get that look.
David
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Pretty killer stuff, cheshirepoet. Pretty killer.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thank you very much! I mainly do pre-press photo retouching at my job, but occasionally get to dabble in flash. I'm not an expert in flash, by any means, but every project I do I learn more and more. The key point to all these photos, as Bill has explained to me, is the lighting. He has an extensive set-up for the lights which is what allows him to achieve this look. Post-production wise, I know he uses a few plug-ins such as Noise Ninja for smoothness and Fluid Mask. But a lot of it is manual work.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
1st attempt. I tweeked it a bit to make it a bit more subtle. I'm blown away by the images posted by cheshirepoet - wow!
My before:
My after:
I want to explore this a bit more as time allows and maybe improve on this one or do another.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Cheshirepoet lighting definately plays a key role in his images. I notice that he has more saturation in his images then most, thats what i was trying to do in my image as well, but I was just testing this photoshop steps. I will have to attept at it again when i use a multi light setup.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
First attempt. Went pretty mild on it.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
First try at this.. Didn't quite follow the instructions but tried variations that I think suited this shot.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Not that I was going for a total Hill rip-off but I originally felt this one was similar:
When I looked at his stuff again I saw a lot more deep blacks. So now I feel its less similar.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Here is mine tryout.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This technique has a LOT to do with the lighting (50-50 split, maybe more towards the lighting). Notice the use of (usually) two sidelights and a front mainlight in lots of Dave Hill's flicks; it's about popping the highlights, whilst not blowing them out, and bring out LOTS of shadow detail.
You can't just apply this techique to any old photo and expect it to work; it plays on the strong highlights and shadow detail! Lots of good examples here, but also a lot of people expecting a computer to make their photo pop!
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
Bazil83 edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
here's my attempt, nice tutorial :D
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@Bazil83: You can say this as often as you want, but nothing is going to stop people attempting to force a wholly inappropriate PS technique onto their party snaps! This is the thread that just keeps giving... ;-)
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Jon: True dat!
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
At least people are trying to learn something... what ever, it is fun to try though.. and post up examples, good or bad.. why not? what are we hurting? takinig away valuable flickr bandwidth? lol,lol,lol have you actually looked around on flicker? you should.... lol..
good job al!!
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It's just depressing that so many people seem to think that the look is a PS thing when a vast part of it is the good lighting. This is a forum for off-camera lighting, and here we have an example of lots of people walking straight past the point. The good shots here show what a difference it makes when you get the whole picture (pun intended)! In the worst examples it doesn't resemble the "Dave Hill LOOK", it looks like somebody used UFRAW's automatic curve generator!
There are some brilliant shots above, but for each of them, there are 30 which aren't. Learning from your own mistakes is good, but learning from other people's is smart! :-)
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This is the Jason Voorhees of Strobist threads.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@jeremysalejr.....lol, I was thinking more like the energizer bunny....it just keeps on going....and going.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
definetlyoverdone: Why do you have to have such negativity? I was simply explaining that you can't just take any old photo and expect this to work! Look at Dave Hill's photos, look at what they have, now look at 90% of these photos here and realise that most are lacking what Dave's have; the right lighting!
Jon Senior hit the nail on the head, really; people ignoring that the key to this effect is lighting, so that your puter has something to work with!
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
another one
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I dont think mine is DH stuff, but maybe you would enjoy it?
Examples can be found from here
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Eddie: The Hasselblad does nothing but increase the size he blow up to before it pixelates. As for the lighting... so what if he's using a sh*tload of Profoto. This is all about impro. Stick some pieces of polystyrene foam next to your subject and blast them with some speedlights on full whack. Make a ringlight out of a foil-covered fluo tube. Don't get caught up on the brand name on his lights. Beg borrow or steal a few more speedlights and just go for lots of hard lighting. But slavishly following the original instructions without adapting to the image and then posting it just shows that you (One, not you personally) can follow a recipe. Cooking is about adaptation (Analogy (C) Dave Hobby).
On the other hand, I quite like that photo. I like that you coloured the reflection as well.
And given that the Dave Hill Look (C) seems to largely based on wrap-around lighting, natural light on an overcast day might be a good starting point.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This process really makes some pictures POP, but on others its either hardly visible or has the improper effect for my tastes.
It seems to favor portrait shots where more facial features are visible or where the original seemed to have a lot of shadow or low contrast areas.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
all tweaks done in Apeture of all things.
DH uses a LOT of back lights, umbrellas coming back on the subject on all three sides of them, including the top. It seems they are pretty balanced to the main light which could be a ring light or two more umbrellas.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
www.ian.ca edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
One of my many takes on the style at hand. The lighting is paramount - as is the subject. People seem to react well to this treament when it is done correctly - well lit, controlled highlights, proper lighting of the background (natural or artificial), etc.
A good noise-reduction or smoothing method helps too - really brings some of that glossy or smooth look back into these photos.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Nice!
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
always have been a fan of this style and here is my first attempt. feed back?
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Saturday morning on the Mississippi in New Orleans. SB-25 camera right, 7:30am sun camera left. Jackson Brewery in the background.
Before
After
FUN!
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Did anyone make this into an action??
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Second attempt. Looks best at full size.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
IMHO making it into an action is a bad idea. you need to have the flexibility of changing the size of the effect, and blending and painting it in and out of the image or it 'll look awful.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sigma 500 Super somewhere in there.
Lots of contrast in my parents' bathroom.
I'm really pleased with this one.
Before:
After:
FWIW - I agree with you wiredjazz. I use different amounts in most of my attempts with this effect, so automating it would surely limit the flexibility.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ok when this gets to six pages I am not reading it anymore! :)
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
bradley - i think your latest shot looks similar in style to merkley???'s work.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Then just look at the pictures....
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
cybershot 8mp!
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@wiredjazz - Who's Merkley?
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hey - I found him!
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
:D
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Before
After
Originally posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
NAustinKG edited this topic 68 months ago.
|
|
NAustinKG, your first version looks better
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Dear god!
464 replies?!?
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I 2nd that emotion!!
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
One more:
Before:
After:
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Another one of my own recipe:
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
1colin:
Would you share your "recipe"?
Thanks in advance.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Here is my attempt but did other things with it 
Originally posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
klechawski edited this topic 68 months ago.
|
|
I think I'm going to vomit.
These are horrible.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
fstops and shutter speeds [deleted] says:
Pony up, son
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
let us see what you work with.....
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
lol.... good work guys!
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ben - I would say there is a pretty wide range. The majority (which also seem to be most of the ones using the OP 'Recipe') are pretty far off.
Some of he ones where people have taken more personal/artisitc care are closer. "The Look" is not reducable to a simple action.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
wow man! you nailed it, it looks even better than the "tyler durden"
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Very good lighting - that is a big part of any great shot.
jesussavez :
... that is great light.
... that is excellent composition
... that is a wonderful set
... that is a fun model and pose
... that is a right on concept
... all fits to make a great shot.
THEN you did the Photoshop.
Yep... that's the way it is done folks.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There's a few people who keep SCREAMING it, but only a few seem to get it: it's all about the light. Carefully crafted light, meant to light just what you want to light. That's how you get the "look" that this topic was meant to explore.
Generally speaking, taking a mediocre snapshot and running all kinds of ridiculous photoshop actions doesn't make it better.
You can take a turd and wrap it in Christmas paper, but inside it's still a turd.
These are straight out of the camera, with no photoshop:
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
fstops and shutter speeds [deleted] says:
ugh... cant. stop. photoshopin'...
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
lol
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
www.dpchallenge.com/
11/09/2006 01:17:26 AM
Hi guys,
Wow, I'm flattered by all this talk! I'm glad some of you like my work. I really can't share much about specifics, and I'm not a photoshop guru, but I am definitely down to discuss. I haven't used HDR or that tone-mapping stuff. I just recently heard about it, and it seems you need to bracket your images to do it well. That would be almost impossible when shooting humans! :-) In terms of cameras, depending on the budget, I use canon digitals and H1's; all prime lenses. Canons are SOOO fun and easy to shoot with, but the H1 files are crisp, edge to edge, and print bigger. Kinda a trade off. I'm a big fan of using lights, and I'd say the primary factor of how my images look is the lighting setup. Photoshop is of course crucial as well, but you gotta have a clean raw file to begin with. Too much processing can give you nasty digital grain, halos, all that stuff, which may look good on Flickr, but when printed on paper for a portfolio that an art director sees, looks like junk. I would totally suggest that new photogs spend less time on PS and more time shooting and playing with lights, and learning how to direct their subjects. As to the comment about $50k shoots... haha... that made me laugh. For sure my budgets have been getting bigger, but a lot of the stuff on my site paid peanuts. You really have to work your butt off; lots of sweat, set-building, hauling lights all over the place, day after day, for at least a few years etc. But that's part of the adventure, right!? Let me know if u guys have any more questions. Thanks!
Dave Hill
davehillphoto.com
photographyisrad.com/
10/24/2007 5:38 PM
Colin Wilson wrote:
Hi Dave, was given a link to your website by a mate, one word Wow! I have started to really get into Hdr, usually interior shots of old Irish cottages, but looking at your work has inspired me to try and process like you do, I dont expect you to give away your trade secrets but how the hell do you do it dude? Lovely original, clever work. Regards Colin
10/24/2007 10:40 PM
Dave Hill wrote:
Hey Colin, thanks!
Two words...
Lucis Art!
dave
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As if he'd use Lucisart, he's a top end pro not a douche bag.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Have any of you considered that he may also do some vectoring in his work?
Of course he's not going to tell you his style in "two words" either, it may play a part in it, so he's not technically lying to anyone.
But think about vectoring... :)
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It would be really cool if we could have seen a large photo from Dave hill, now, all we see is the small previews on his homepage, I don't think the result looks the same on a large scale...? or what do u think?
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
fstops and shutter speeds [deleted] says:
I imagine they look really good in print. People are paying for his stuff and he looks damn busy. He aint doing that with OK prints...
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Even if he uses Lucis (which I really doubt - I think he's just joking around in that post) it is FAR from the only trick in his bag.
adam...
Buy the magazine Alternative Press (also called AP).
Most of his band shots appear in it. The latest issue has at least one of his shots in it.
THey do look a little different - the contrast is not as pronounced in print as it is on a monitor, but they still look really good.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
yhea, okey, I won't buy that mag now, since we don't have it in Sweden, but would be cool to see a full scale image on the computer monitor....
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
does Dave hill even do his own processing? I could of swormn i read someplace that he and jill greenberg use some woman to process shots.
Alot of Hills stuff looks like HDR, great lighting and Lucis... its not entirely inconcievable that he's NOT using one or the other or all of these different tools... it wouldnt make him any less a great photog and it sure wouldnt make his value go down... the guy does an awesome job and as much as im into it and as many photos i see that try to copy him, my own included... he's still producing the best images out there in this style.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It’s rumoured that Jill uses Amy Dresser and some people say her work was in Amy’s portfolio but has now been removed.
There is an Amy Dresser tutorial which shows a lot of promise...
Amy Dresser Technique
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What is the difference between LucisArt and HDR? I use HDR software all the time and have played with the LucisArt trial filter. LucisArt does some painterly things but a few of it's filters like EXPOSURE and SCULPTURE when used subtly produce HDR-like effects.
To those of you who have both the LucisArt filter and HDR software - is there really any difference?
Thanks!
David
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
for the love of humanity will a moderator please close this thread
it doesn't look like it will ever die on its own
crap, i just bumped it again didn't i?
*sighs*
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Why should this thread die? Seems people are interested in learning new techniques. Anyway, I agree, lighting is a huge part of this process. And just because he says he doesn't use a specific program or filter doesn't mean you can't get that look by using those programs/filters. Remember that. There are many ways to get the same look!
I don't like the look for everything but it's just another tool to have in my toolbox.
Also, if using HDR is the same as LucisArt I can save money! I don't wan to spend $150 on a filter that I don't need. Although I think they have a 7 day return policy - that's good.
David
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
that Amy De\resser Tech is what i use... io like the control i have doing it all manual and i use a few thing diffrent but the basics is the same as Amy outlones in this tutorial and so far it has work fairly was... i am still trying to prefect it but i love it all the same...
here is an image using the tech.
my major diff,. is i use two separate layers for dodge and burn both are 50% gray filled set blend mode to soft light ..then work away... i do this to see the dodge and burn effect individually.and found it easier to make corrections later.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
All in Lightroom...
Originally posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
leesure edited this topic 68 months ago.
|
|
Eddie, it's just not there. There's more to it then crazy post processing.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
+1 on acesnines
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Dave Hill is a very talented photographer, but what makes his work unique isn't just a ps technique. People like Jill Greenberg and Jim Fiscus have been using this sort of image processing and lighting for years. What makes Dave a great photographer is his excitement in doing his job and exploring new ways to communicate his ideas. I find him to be a very inspirational person not because he has a technique that I want to copy, but because he seems like the kind of guy who wakes up each morning with an infectious desire to make great images. The best way to become a better photographer is to take more photographs. :)
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
about_face.....I just removed your post from this thread. Please don't post nude images to this group. If you look at the guidelines on the Strobist group's main page, nudes are not allowed. Feel free to post these types of photos to the Strobist After Dark -- 18+ group
Originally posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
andrewstrauss edited this topic 68 months ago.
|
|
|
a couple of thoughts here...
A) this IS strobist... we are all here because MOST of us dont have / cant afford huge lighting set ups, thus we cant ALL shoot the way Hill does so we have to go for the next best thing... emulating the look in PS. I mean, its right in tune with the Strobists DIY credo... "Theres gotta be a cheaper way" ..... and its fun! I mean, look at how we all drool over making a Ringflash or snoot or soft box .
B) i think by now everyone pretty much knows whats going on, that Hill uses really good lighting to get this look, and a good amount of PP, lets face it, i have seen some hill type stuff SOOC and it dont look like this.. there is PS invloved.
C) I believe this thread is the biggest one here, if not, its very close to it....thats gotta say something to the "Haters" out there who feel its important to post negative remarks here.
D) look around.... it would seem the these threads are never gonna go away, not untill SOMEONE figures it out and makes a real tutorial and posts it somwhere..and then everyone goes and buys a ton of WL1600's and a REAL Ringflash. Untill then, people will be starting these threads more and more.
Just some thoughts.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@definetlyoverdone:
A) This IS strobist... not PS-The-Hell-Out-Of-My-Image! This is an excuse. Take a photo outside. Use the sun as your rim lighting. Fire a strobe or two at full power into a sheet, poke a hole in it and stick your lens through!
B) It's both the light, and the post. So obviously if you take one of those out of the equation you won't get the look! Given that the post is do-able, why not concentrate on working out a way of doing the lighting on a budget.
C) x Million Germans... oh no... hang on a minute, that's a daft argument! ;-)
D) But people have figured it out. You said it yourself; it involves getting the light right. That doesn't mean buying a sh*t-load of WL1600's. It means getting light into the right places. So look beyond the badges on the equipment and look at the light quality and where it goes... That's the gist of DH's commentry on the blog.
Think. You know how to mimic the post. Now try and work out how to mimic the light. Don't just apply a set of techniques to your holiday snaps! It's not "hating". It's sheer exasperation. Put some of the effort into reproducing the light and the effect of the post is going to be enhanced. JL talked about shooting for post. Try it.
Edit: If someone in or near Paris (France) wants to try this but doesn't have enough light on their own, I will gladly provide assistance. I can supply 3 x strobes, 2 x umbrellas, 1 x stand (possibly 2 soon), diffuser material and a person to hold stuff and help out. Organise, pool resources.
Originally posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
Jon_Senior edited this topic 68 months ago.
|
|
|
Well, in order to get that look you don't need a lot of fancy post processing at all. Mostly lighting, USM, Smart Sharpen, and creative dodging and burning. Here is an image I did like this:
www.davidpalermo.com/mark4a.jpg
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I created a new group focusing on this very subject. Check it out.
www.flickr.com/groups/david_hill_look/
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
davidpalermo - That doesn't really look like Hill. Sorry. It looks like Lucis.
Originally posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
iHartPhotos.com edited this topic 68 months ago.
|
|
fstops and shutter speeds [deleted] says:
Boo yah!
what did I win?
Originally posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
fstops and shutter speeds edited this topic 68 months ago.
|
Strobist.com /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Strobist.com discussion threads